1. Introduction
This article explores the composition and communication of political
discourse, focusing particularly on the relationships political science
maintains with other disciplines. Specifically, it examines its
connections with linguistics, which provides the textual foundation for
discourse composition, and rhetoric, which offers the tools and
strategies necessary for its construction and communication. Special
attention is given to the cultural role of metaphor in shaping political
discourse. As such, this paper aims to provide a theoretical and
methodological foundation for studies in political science.
Before delving into these topics, I would like to briefly outline my
perspective on the role played by Ancient Greek philosophers in the
development of political discourse. Their contributions were
instrumental not only in advancing rhetorical and political science as
theoretical disciplines and forms of techne, but also in
shaping their ideas within the specific socio-cultural context of their
time. It is essential to recognize that their concepts were deeply
rooted in their historical circumstances, influenced by their views of
the world and humanity’s role within it.
While some of their perspectives, such as those on slavery or their
prioritization of majority opinions over minority voices, are no longer
acceptable today, the enduring relevance of their ideas lies in their
classical nature. This quality allows for their reinterpretation across
different eras and contexts. Acknowledging this adaptability is crucial
for understanding the significance of Greek Antiquity in the modern
world. HansGeorg Gadamer (1986) once emphasized the necessity of
engaging in a dialogue with Aristotle. Perhaps this methodological
approach offers the best foundation for the discussion presented in this
paper.
In his discussion of the historical role of rhetoric in social life,
Nicholas O’Shaughnessy highlights that, in ancient Greece, rhetoric was
synonymous with power. Rhetoricians were both admired and feared
(O’Shaughnessy, 2014). Reflecting on Plato’s and Aristotle’s
perspectives on rhetoric, O’Shaughnessy observes that, among Aristotle’s
triad of ethos, logos, and pathos, only the
latter —emotional appeals— is predominantly evident in the contemporary
political sphere. This dominance might suggest a reduction of rhetoric
to a limited activity. However, O’Shaughnessy challenges this notion,
arguing that the essence of rhetoric is simultaneously visible and
invisible, serving multiple purposes within government.
Far from being merely a medium for ideological clashes or policy
promotion, modern rhetoric also functions as the official language of
government. It is a tool for refutation and a professional instrument
for justifying governmental actions. Using the administrations of David
Cameron and Barack Obama as examples, O’Shaughnessy illustrates how
rhetoric in these contexts was not transformed into philosophy or a
guiding principle. Instead, contemporary rhetoric is described as
formulaic, epigrammatic, and less memorable. This lack of spontaneity,
he argues, reduces politicians to performers of pantomime rather than
authentic communicators.
Political discourse is inherently cognitive, incorporating discursive
elements rooted in the social and political context of its composition
(Van Dijk, 2003). In addition to its syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
characteristics, the stylistic construction of political speeches plays
a critical role. Key stylistic features include the use of short
sentences and rhetorical questions (Wong & Yap, 2015), pauses and
intonation (Bull, 1986), positive self-presentation, and the negative
other-presentation (Van Dijk, 2013). Other significant elements are the
extensive frameworks of actor analysis (Van Leeuwen, 2008) and
discursive strategies of (de)legitimation (Reyes, 2011), along with
techniques such as polarization, lexicalization, categorization, voice
modulation, and gesticulation (Poggi & Pelachaud, 2008). Non-verbal
expressions, such as facial cues (Bucy & Bradley, 2004) and hand and
face gestures (Poggi, 2007), contribute to the development of a unique
“rhetorical signature” (Frank, 2011).
Style is a crucial aspect of a political leader’s self-presentation.
It encompasses a broad spectrum of characteristics, ranging from
dynamic, less rehearsed, and moment-based styles to more static and
meticulously planned modes of self-expression. The concept of
indexicality (Silverstein, 1976), which reveals the
interconnections between history, culture, and politics (Reyes, 2014),
is also essential for understanding political discourse. Additionally,
indexicality facilitates the study of intertextuality
(Fairclough, 2003).
The communicative dimension of speech transforms rhetorical political
speech from mere text into discourse. This transformation is enriched by
various rhetorical elements, such as metaphor and its related forms
—simile, metonymy, synecdoche, symbol, allegory, anaphora, parallelism,
and chiasmus. These features are integral to the study of political
discourse, enhancing its depth and effectiveness.
The final point I would like to address is my use of two syntagmatic
expressions with a unified meaning in this paper: political
discourse and rhetorical political discourse. I treat
these terms as synonymous because rhetorical discourse is inseparable
from political discourse, and vice versa, as I will demonstrate in this
article. In other words, any discourse that employs rhetorical figures
and tools of composition to shape the social sphere can be considered to
possess a degree of political character. The “colours” on this political
palette may vary —ranging across literary, philosophical, educational,
and other discourses— but they collectively form a framework that
describes relationships within societies and between different societies
and communities.
Given that the primary function of both rhetorical and political
discourse is persuasion, rhetoric cannot exist without a political
foundation, just as politics cannot operate without rhetorical elements.
My perspective aligns with the observation that political studies are
largely studies in rhetoric —that is, studies of how rhetorical
political discourse is constructed and communicated (Bitzer, 1981;
Graber, 1981; Swanson & Nimmo (eds.) 1990; Van Dijk, 1997; Chaffee,
2001). As Van Dijk notes, Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) “should not
merely be a contribution to discourse studies, but also to political
science and social science more generally” (Van Dijk, 1997: 11).
A rhetorical component is central to political discourse. Despite
being addressed to varied audiences, its primary objective remains
persuasion and the dissemination of political ideas. Political speeches
analysed within political science frameworks, alongside other
documentary materials such as manifestos, reflect a political party’s
stance on current issues and shape public attitudes toward specific
political contexts. These texts legitimize political decisions and equip
politicians with the confidence and conviction that their ideas will be
widely accepted and embraced.
Politicians employ a range of platforms to achieve these goals,
including party conferences, parliamentary and televised debates, forums
where political leaders collaborate on joint action programs, and
various social communication channels. These channels include
newspapers, social media, and even the involvement of public figures
outside the professional political sphere, such as writers, academics,
bloggers, and influencers. Through these means, politicians construct a
modern Agora —a space that connects and unites people in
support of political decisions.
2. Text and discourse
It is impossible to envision political life —comprising political
communication, the planning and implementation of political programs,
and policies— without the use of language. Various forms of linguistic
expression, including professional political speeches and addresses, the
language of political media (Ayala, 1985; Albaladejo, 1991), and even
communication among ordinary citizens, highlight the necessity of
specialized skills for effective political communication. Politics, as a
form of human activity, has captivated thinkers throughout history, from
Plato to Hannah Arendt. Its significance is undeniable, and the ways in
which it is realized are diverse and complex. Language, as the primary
tool of political communication, is indispensable in all political
processes.
However, possessing linguistic skills alone is insufficient for
successful political communication, as language cannot be separated from
the broader components of human cognition. Linguistic operations form
the textual foundation for composing political discourse. Language
serves to construct and communicate meaning (Fauconnier, 1999). What
politicians require is the ability to transform text into discourse
—adding a communicative dimension to the linguistic substrate. Discourse
is a phenomenon that encompasses both semantic and pragmatic elements,
which are essential for the analysis and decoding of a political
message.
To achieve its goal —convincing the audience of the correctness of a
political plan or action— a political discourse must be composed in a
way that is understandable to its target audience. “Understandable” here
means “acceptable” and to be acceptable, the discourse must be grounded
in common values, or what Van Dijk (2006b) terms the “Cultural Common
Ground”. This common ground is inherently fluid, evolving over time.
Consequently, politicians must demonstrate flexibility, crafting
discourse that can adapt to any foreseeable situation, whether tomorrow
or in the near future.
The linguistic components that make up a political text include
grammar, lexicon, and semantic elements. Grammatical and lexical
components establish various levels of abstraction (Arduini, 2007).
Rhetorical figures are crucial for the composition of political texts,
with metaphors holding a prominent position alongside other forms of
metaphorical series, such as similes, metonymy, synecdoche, symbols,
allegory, anaphora, parallelism, and chiasmus. These rhetorical devices
are important in both positive, legitimate forms of political
communication (persuasion; Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 1992; O’Keefe,
2018; Suhay, Grofman, & Trechsel, 2020) and negative, illegitimate
forms (manipulation; Riker, 1986). Thus, language serves not only as a
medium but also as a tool for the thought process. It shapes the
message, functioning as an instrument of persuasion and forming the
basis for rhetorical tropes that facilitate successful persuasion
(O’Shaughnessy, 2014). The relationship between Rhetoric and Text
Linguistics has been extensively studied and documented (García Berrio,
1984; Albaladejo, 1989, 2019a, 2019b).
Language, culture, and cognition are studied from a linguistic
perspective, with Cognitive Linguistics examining the role of each in
communication. Metaphor plays a central role in this interaction, as its
persuasive power, rooted in linguistic characteristics and cultural
potential, can be effectively mediated through cognitive activity.
Various theories provide new insights into the role of metaphor in
shaping mental models that facilitate successful persuasion. One such
theory is the Conceptual Metaphor Theory developed by Lakoff and
Johnson, which highlights the prevalence of metaphor in language and
offers novel methods for metaphorical analysis.
The ways we use language and formulate arguments are products of our
cognitive processes, which are based on specific knowledge structures
that, in turn, are shaped by conceptual cross-domain mappings (Lakoff,
1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Gibbs (1999) focused on the role of
cross-domain mappings in language use, emphasizing how metaphorical
thought operates automatically and interactively. These mappings
influence people’s understanding of metaphorical meaning, motivate
linguistic meaning, and have the potential to alter the meanings of
words over time.
Other theories include Mental Space Theory (Fauconnier, 1994), which
suggests that words shape the construction of mental spaces without
directly referencing entities, and Conceptual Blending Theory
(Fauconnier & Turner, 2002), which explains the conceptual
operations involved in discursive communication.
The repetition of a message that lacks a semantic foundation is a
highly effective strategy for political leaders. If we imagine a
situation where a political speech is delivered with extensive
associative connections and logical reasoning, it becomes clear that a
large portion of society, lacking the same analytical abilities that
shape the political message, will struggle to retain it. Contrary to
logical expectations, a speech composed of short, less connected, and
more emotional sentences will be more easily absorbed and
remembered.
3. Rhetoric and cultural
rhetoric
Rhetoric and politics have been closely connected since ancient
times. They likely emerged together, or in
such a short period that it is difficult to determine which preceded the
other. The role of the sophists in the development of rhetoric for
political purposes, including figures like Gorgias, who came to Athens
as a political representative delivering speeches, as well as Hippias’
creation of a mnemonic system, the use of rhythms in prose, and the
focus on influencing the emotional sphere of the audience, all
demonstrate the deep connection between rhetoric and politics (Encinas,
2012).
Two possible approaches to the development of rhetoric include the
view that it originated as a political genre following the establishment
of a republican government in Syracuse, and another perspective that
links rhetoric to the development of the judicial genre, which emerged
due to the political instability following the death of Hieron and the
continuation of tyrannical rule under the Tracible. This political
context partially shaped the evolution of the judicial sphere. In both
cases, it is clear that rhetoric developed in response to political
instability, aiming to achieve social stability and lay the foundations
of democracy (Hinks, 1940; Encinas, 2012).
Traveling from Syracuse to Athens, rhetoric found itself in a
democratic environment that further shaped its development. The presence
of sophists (Kerferd, 1981; Gagarin, 2010), who were deeply involved in
the intellectual life of the time, also helped advance rhetoric across
various areas of human communication, including politics, history,
philosophy, and education. The political activity of that period, as
well as relations between countries, wars, and diplomatic interactions,
led to the creation and delivery of political discourses. While most of
these have not survived to the present day, those that have demonstrate
the role rhetoric played in political communication and the skills
possessed by rhetors for its execution (Wilcox, 1942; Goebel, 1983;
Encinas, 2012). Rhetorical strategies helped shape collective
consciousness, creating a clear distinction between “us” and “them”,
which fostered social cohesion and nurtured patriotic sentiments
(Caballero López, 2012).
For Aristotle, rhetorical discourse consisted of three components:
the speaker, the content being communicated, and the audience for whom
it was delivered. Based on the role of the hearers in the communication
process, rhetorical discourse was classified as epidictic or
demonstrative (when the audience does not make a decision after the
discourse is delivered), judicial (when the audience decides on past
events), and deliberative (when the audience makes decisions about
future events) (Aristóteles, 1971: 1358a36-1358b8). Naturally, political
discourse is primarily deliberative, as its main goal is to persuade the
audience and bring about concrete political changes in the near future.
This represents the social function of rhetoric, which developed over
centuries and reached its fullest expression in democratic societies,
where it is most evident (Vives, cited in Albaladejo, 2012). Based on
this function, rhetoric is a social and cultural tool that facilitates
relations between groups and individuals in society (Albaladejo, 2012).
At the same time, political discourse also includes demonstrative and
judicial elements, as it takes into account the referential and
contextual foundations that underpin its composition. This should be
considered when composing, analyzing, and interpreting rhetorical
discourses (Vilches Vivancos, 2012; Albaladejo, 2012).
The further development of rhetoric is observed in Rome, beginning
around the mid-second century B.C. The role of Cato the Elder, to whom a
lost tractate on rhetoric is attributed (Atkins, 1961), as well as the
anonymous work La Rhetorica ad Herennium, often attributed to
Cicero (Grube, 1968), and Cicero’s own set of works on rhetoric,
alongside Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria (Quintilian, 1970),
collectively form the Rhetorica recepta —a theoretical corpus
that outlines the fundamental categories and characteristics of the
rhetorical system (Albaladejo, 1989). This period continued until the
5th century A.D., during which the contributions of minor Latin
rhetoricians further shaped the development of rhetoric (Halm, 1964;
Murphy, 1982).
The development of rhetoric continued through the Middle Ages (De
Bruyne, 1958; Curtius, 1981), when rhetoric became closely connected
with poetics, leading to the “rhetorization” of poetics and the
“poetization” of rhetoric (García Berrio, 1977: 23). In the Renaissance
(Weinberg, 1961; García Berrio, 1977, 1994; Murphy, 1994), rhetoric was
separated from poetics (García Berrio, 1977: 22). During French
Classicism, rhetoric evolved into the science of elocutio,
focusing primarily on style and neglecting other aspects, resulting in
the formation of what is known as rhétorique restreinte
(Genette, 1972; Ricoeur, 1980). It was only in the 20th century that
rhetoric was revived in its original form, giving rise to three distinct
dimensions: rhetoric of argumentation (Perelman, Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1989), structuralist rhetoric (Grupo , 1987), and general textual
rhetoric (García Berrio, 1984; Pozuelo Yvancos, 1988).
Different rhetorical operations influence the effectiveness of
political discourse composition and communication. Rhetorical operations
that contribute to discourse formation, such as inventio,
dispositio, and elocutio, alongside those that assist
in the delivery and communication, like memoria and
actio/pronuntiatio, rely on the pre-operational phenomenon of
intellectio. This element is crucial as it establishes a
cultural- communicative horizon (Arduini, 1991), facilitating rhetorical
communication and forming part of the rhetorical operations of poietic
activity (Albaladejo & Chico Rico, 1994). Intellectio
determines which parts of the speech the orator should memorize to
achieve successful persuasion (Vilches Vivancos, 2012). It enables the
orator to identify the status of the question, which may either
be general (quaestio infinita —a domain of philosophy) or
specific (quaestio finite —a domain of rhetoric). This
distinction characterizes the reason as either dialectic, when lacking
status, or firm, when it provides a solid foundation for constructing a
rhetorical discourse (Albaladejo, 1989).
Inventio is the phase in which concrete ideas are sought to
form the foundation for the construction of a rhetorical discourse. It
serves to identify key concepts aimed at persuading the audience
(Capdevila, 2002). The definition and realization of rhetorical
strategy, as well as the formulation of rhetorical argumentation, are
essential components of this operation (Vázquez & Aldea, 1991).
These elements assist a political leader in discovering and organizing
ideas for effective persuasion (Vilches Vivancos, 2012).
Inventio is a process of textual elaboration —an
extensional-semantic operation that leads to the identification of the
extensional res that should be incorporated into the discourse
(Albaladejo, 1989).
Dispositio serves the function of organizing the internal
structure of the text, including both the semantic-intentional and
syntactic components, based on the extensional-semantic material
provided by inventio. This process transforms the textual
material into a macrostructure (Albaladejo, 1989). Macrostructures are
“higher order propositions subsuming underlying propositions” (Van Dijk,
1995: 389). As macrostructures consist of sections of the partes
orationis, Heinrich Lausberg suggests that dispositio
should be viewed as a constituent part of inventio, as the
latter is oriented toward the partes orationis.
Elocutio, as Quintilian noted, is the operation that
transforms a discourse into an act (Quintilian, 1970). It is the
verbalization of the semantic-intentional structure of discourse that
follows dispositio, but may also be considered part of it, as
well as of inventio (Albaladejo, 1989). When rhetoric lost its
political dimension in the first century, elocutio became the
only operation practiced, marking the loss of the political dimension of
political discourse. This shift resulted in the absence of the
interpretative function of rhetorical discourse, as there was nothing
left to persuade, and rhetoric was reduced to the transfer of cultural
elements, leaving elocutio with a purely aesthetic function
(Pujante, 2012). As observed, during Classicism, no special theories
regarding poetic language were formulated. Instead, rhetorical concepts
were applied to poetry (García Berrio, 1984; Pujante, 2012).
Inventio, dispositio, and elocutio
participate in the formation of a rhetorical discourse, which is
retained by the orator through the operations of memoria and
actio/pronuntiatio before being delivered to the public (Gómez
Alonso, 1997).
Memoria refers to the process of retaining the discourse in
memory, ensuring the preservation of its syntactic and semantic
structures for the successful delivery of the speech (Albaladejo,
1989).
Actio/pronuntiatio is the operation that distinguishes
political discourse from other forms of discursive representation. It
involves making the right emphasis on key topics, using pauses between
sentences, varying tone modulation, and incorporating body language
—particularly eye contact (Ekström, 2012)— and gesticulation. These
elements make political discourse more impactful and memorable. Common
strategies include simplifying the lexicon, using modal verbs and short
phrases, and employing rhetorical devices like epanalepsis and anaphora,
as demonstrated in the analysis of President N. Sarkozy’s speech
(Sarmiento González, 2012). Intellectio, memoria, and
actio/pronuntiatio are rhetorical operations that do not
directly contribute to the formation of discourse but are essential for
the realization of communicative-rhetorical activity (Albaladejo and
Chico Rico, 1994).
Rhetoric has a political dimension, and politics carries a rhetorical
one. In both cases, the goal of communication is persuasion, which means
prioritizing the successful communication of a message over its absolute
truthfulness. In political life, politicians explore rhetorical
strategies not only for persuasion but also for manipulation, making it
often difficult to distinguish the two. Political discourses play a
crucial role in shaping and consolidating society, especially during
moments of crisis when opposing political factions come together to
resolve the situation (Albaladejo, 2012). Therefore, being a rhetor
requires a strong sense of imagination, which allows one to transform
the unreal into reality and, ultimately, to make this imagined reality
both desirable and tangible. Political rhetoric can be categorized into
different types, including electoral rhetoric, parliamentary rhetoric,
and rhetoric related to other forms of political communication (Vilches
Vivancos, 2012).
Rhetoric, as one of the classical sciences, evaluates the
composition, analysis, and communication methods of discourses. It also
studies various forms of discourse, including political discourse, their
interpretation, and the relationship between different types of
discourse, as well as their textual and cultural characteristics
(Albaladejo, 2013a; Albaladejo & Chico Rico, 2022). Given this, it
is no surprise that politicians are deeply invested in rhetoric.
Effective communication requires a profound understanding of rhetorical
operations, which are essential for political leaders (López Eire &
Santiago Guervós, 2000). Alongside Pragmatics (Van Dijk, 1976), rhetoric
provides the tools necessary to realize three key approaches for
successful communication: significance, communication, and context
(Levinson, 1983; Clark, 1987; Eco, 1987; Carillo Guerrero, 2009). As
noted, rhetoric is not merely a catalogue of figures but a worldview
that incorporates philosophical, political, linguistic, aesthetic,
juridical, ethical, literary, and other types of discourse (Siles Ruiz,
2012: 25). Rhetoric is closely related to Dialectic, as Aristotle (1971:
1354a) stated, arising from the coexistence of pre- existing ideas that
form the foundation for rhetorical discourse. The dialectical opposition
between different ideas shapes the approach to reality and serves as the
basis for creating arguments that must carry sufficient weight to
persuade listeners of their validity. Rhetoric also intersects with
Pragmatics (shaped by the linguistic characteristics of rhetorical
discourse; Heilmann, 1983), Grammar (which ensures correct language use,
a crucial element for successful communication; Albaladejo, 1989), and
Semiotics (which involves the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
components of discourse composition, linking Rhetoric with Text
Linguistics and the Theory of Literature; Albaladejo, 1989).
Cultural rhetoric (Albaladejo, 2013b, 2016; Gallor Guarín, 2019;
Chico Rico, 2020; Luarsabishvili (eds.) 2023, 2024) represents a new
dimension within the framework of Neo-Rhetoric (Chico Rico, 2015). It
builds upon General Textual Rhetoric (García Berrio, 1984) and aims to
distinguish both the rhetorical dimension of culture and the cultural
dimension of rhetoric. All rhetorical operations integrated into the
cultural environment, along with the cultural values embedded in
rhetorical political discourse, serve to convince the audience of the
truthfulness of a political message. These operations also help
establish the foundation for the existence of society within historical
and temporal contexts. The composition and analysis of different types
of discourses, as well as the relationships between them —referred to as
interdiscursivity (Gómez- Moriana, 1997; Albaladejo, 2005a,
2008)— enable varied interpretations of discourses, known as
polyacroasis (Albaladejo, 2009, 2012), and contribute to
successful communication. Cultural elements embedded in rhetorical
discourse are also present in other discourse types, such as literary,
philosophical, educational,and political discourses. These discourses
complement one another, facilitate communication, and help navigate
human reality as represented through discourse, exchanging cultural
components that shape and develop cultural practices.
Political discourse activates cultural elements in the consciousness
of society members, forging connections between the discourse’s semantic
message and the values that form the cultural episteme of a particular
society. Chilton (2005) emphasized that discourse is a product of human
interaction, highlighting the role of all social factors —relations,
objects, etc.— that contribute to the discursive exchange of social
practices. This underscores the necessity of understanding the social
foundations that shape values at specific moments in human history.
The use of metaphor in language aims to conceptualize expression,
transforming conventional meanings into unconventional ones. These
unconventional interpretations, inherently subjective, give metaphors
their meaning. Metaphors are not confined to language alone; both
linguistic (less asymmetric) and non-linguistic (more asymmetric) forms
represent events or objects in an unconventional way. In addition to
metaphors, similes, analogies, and models are also employed to define an
object. These involve the process of comparison (as in similes),
similarity (as in analogies —simple, proportional, and predictive), and
modeling (as in the case of models) (Indurkhya, 1992).
The primary goal of a political message is to achieve political
objectives through persuasion (Janoschka, 2010). The role of metaphor in
political discourse is twofold: on one hand, metaphor helps construct a
convincing discourse —one that the audience perceives as an intellectual
product, leaving a strong impression of truth. The way the message is
delivered and composed may not always be fully understandable, yet it
can appear sophisticated, creating the impression of the orator’s
professionalism. A skilled political speaker is one who creates an
impression, not necessarily meaning. This impression is reinforced by a
network of metaphorical meanings activated once the message is
delivered. An interesting study on the use of metaphors for political
legitimation by President Bush is provided by Hobbes (2008). Metaphor,
along with humour and myth, is among the rhetorical strategies commonly
employed by politicians (Charteris-Black, 2011).
Another role of metaphor in political discourse is its ability to
create an image in the audience’s consciousness. On one hand, metaphors
enhance trust in the meanings they convey, thereby influencing the
credibility of the politician. On the other hand, metaphors help to
construct a picture that reflects the essence of the political message.
This process transforms the audience from mere listeners into
participants in the creation of the message, connecting it to a broader
cultural narrative known as the cultural memory of a nation. When a new
detail aligns seamlessly with this established picture, the audience
experiences a sense of pleasure and gratitude toward the politician who
guided them into this cultural context. Thus, the audience is not
necessarily grateful for the semantic core of the message itself, but
for the aesthetic and cultural resonance it evokes.
Metaphors play a significant role in the creation of discourse by a
political leader. By labelling opponents with negative adjectives and
contrasting them with a positive portrayal of their own achievements,
the political leader constructs a discourse that navigates between
reason and emotion. In this discourse, reason is often replaced by a
historical narrative —an aspect that cannot be easily verified and, in
many cases, evokes pride among people. Emotions are intensified,
rhetorically supported, and connected to widely shared societal values,
such as religious rights, moral behaviour, or patriotism. Additionally,
if the leader possesses physical attractiveness, it can further enhance
their appeal and contribute to gaining fame within society.
The concept of the metaphorical engine was recently
introduced to describe the semiotic projection of metaphorical meaning
across different spaces of discourse, such as syntactic, semantic, and
pragmatic domains. This term is used to explain the phenomenon of
meaning transference during communication (Albaladejo, 2019c, 2023).
This phenomenon can be observed at all stages of discursive activity:
creation, transmission, analysis, and interpretation of discourses. It
allows the receiver to grasp the encoded meaning in the message and,
after successful analysis, interpret it based on the semantic
equivalence and polyvalence of the metaphorical composition. The
metaphorical engine also helps define metaphor as an integral part of
the communicative code, enabling receivers who possess specific cultural
traditions to recognize metaphorical meanings. Furthermore, the
metaphorical engine is a component of a broader figure
engine, which includes other tropes and figures (Chico Rico,
2019).
5. Context
Context is a space that holds historical and cultural dimensions,
within which the self-realization of human society occurs. The term can
be explored from various perspectives, and much has been written to
describe its characteristics and constituent elements (Coseriu, 1967;
Mignolo, 1978; Wellek & Warren, 1993; Chico Rico, 2007; Escandell,
2008; Van Dijk, 2008; Jiménez, 2018). In this discussion, we will focus
briefly on one specific type of context: the social context in general
terms, and the political context in particular, which forms a crucial
part of the broader social context.
Social context is a space defined by the social characteristics of
everyday life. Economic, healthcare, demographic, migration,
psychological, and other factors that influence the well-being of human
society make up the social context, which is inherently dynamic and
subject to change. Significant changes in one area often lead to
modifications in others; for example, increased migration can affect
public health systems, and economic difficulties may alter demographic
trends. One of the key components of social context is political life,
which plays a crucial role in shaping the fluctuations in the social
well-being of any society.
Political context is shaped by a set of characteristics that
influence various aspects of a society, nation, or community. One of the
foundational elements of political context is historical experience
(Oakeshott, 1958, 1983, 1991). Questions such as where we come from,
what we have achieved, and how we plan to realize ourselves in the
future must be answered through the lens of our historical background.
This experience may be shared by neighbouring countries, which we refer
to as collective historical experience, or it may be unique to
geographically distant countries, which we call individual
historical experience. Historical experience can also be collective
when countries within a region, such as European nations, have engaged
in shared political or cultural activities in the past, potentially
bridging the gap between geographically distant nations. Both collective
and individual historical experiences can lead to social crises at
various stages of societal development (Valdivia, 2019, 2020).
However, historical experience is not the only component of political
context. Another crucial element is the cultural episteme, which is
shaped during the realization of a particular historical experience.
Culture is composed of values —shared beliefs about various aspects of
everyday life. These values may be universal, accepted by most of human
society, or non-universal, specific to particular societies. In both
cases, values serve as fundamental elements in the formation of
cultures, determining the role of traditions and their continuity or
disappearance over time or across epochs.
Political context arises from both the historical and cultural
dimensions of the social context. Different countries have distinct
traditions for organizing political life. For instance, some countries
have a predominance of democratic or republican governments, while in
others, social programs shape the formation of parliaments and
assemblies. Political context is structured based on both historical
experience and the current political situation. Some countries have not
participated in military conflicts for several centuries, and this
experience influences their political context. In contrast, other
countries are consistently involved in military operations around the
world, driven by their political agendas, which also shape their
political context. In both cases, political context is shaped by
historical and cultural dimensions.
Political discourse, which is inherently rhetorical, is entirely
shaped by contextual peculiarities. The speech delivered by U.S.
President Joe Biden on the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion
of Ukraine is grounded in both the general
international political context and the specific situation in Ukraine.
In his speech, President Biden connects two distinct contexts: one
rooted in the past and the other in the current political landscape. By
doing so, he creates a cohesive narrative that draws the audience into
the political arena and intensifies the emotional impact of his message.
Therefore, for the formation of a concrete political context, both
global and local factors must be considered. Without this, the political
rhetorical discourse risks being disconnected from its context and
failing to persuade the audience.
Politics is a focal point for various disciplines, including social
and biomedical sciences. Social sciences examine politics from a range
of perspectives —economic, judicial, psychological, philosophical,
educational, and historical. Biomedical sciences, on the other hand,
focus on the political aspects of the organization of biomedical fields,
scientific research, and approaches to public health and global
humanitarian issues. In all of these cases, politics has something to
say for today of mankind and, to a certain extent, determines the future
of humanity.
6. Credibility and
communication
Credibility refers to the quality of being accepted or trusted. In
the case of a political leader, it signifies the ability to inspire
trust. Truthfulness, on the other hand, is often associated with
expertise in a given field. Politicians, as experts in the realm of
social negotiations, identify the challenges society faces in a
particular context and propose solutions. However, politicians often
exaggerate or even create non-existent issues.
Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953) add another dimension to
credibility: the intention toward the receiver. Indeed, a politician
must be —or at least appear to be— an expert in order to legitimize
their intervention. The intervention should contain elements that
inspire trust in the receiver or, at the very least, convince them of
the truthfulness of the political discourse. This effort, aimed at
making the event a success, is realized through persuasion. In this way,
reputation and competence are established (Haiman, 1949), with the
politician being perceived as a leader who possesses authority and
character (McCroskey, 1966).
Popularity is the way a political leader acquires credibility. When a
leader is popular and consistently delivers messages that align with
public expectations, they become memorable. Over time, everything the
leader says is perceived as absolute truth, not based on the content of
the message, but on the activation of a part of the consciousness that
recalls previous messages. Credibility is formed over a period and
becomes strongly fixed in memory. To undo or reverse this credibility by
attaching a negative meaning to it requires a long time. This can occur
if a politician remains on the political stage for decades or acts
against established norms of political and social behavior. In most
cases, however, once credibility is acquired, it is rarely lost.
Credibility helps to convince, but what exactly is being convinced?
It is the acceptance of certain characteristics by the audience. As
Jeffery Scott Mio put it: “Among their many uses, metaphors are applied
to convey policies, convince, or persuade the public of a plan of
action, or to characterize political opponents” (Scott Mio, 1996, p.
127). These two approaches —convincing the audience of the correctness
of a plan and negatively characterizing political opponents— are two
sides of the same phenomenon. If a political message lacks a clear
semantic core, it should be built on an emotional foundation to be
convincing. Characterizing political opponents with metaphorical
expressions, often sophisticated in nature, creates an illusion of
truth. Logical opposition, which may not be evidence-based but is easily
formulated, can persuade the audience of the orator’s truthfulness,
thereby enhancing the politician’s credibility.
Credibility is a pathway to popularity. A political leader’s
increasing popularity is almost entirely based on the credibility that
makes leader an attractive orator. When a politician first enters the
political scene, s/he is less attractive; becoming a leader takes time.
If leader’s appearances are frequent and tied to significant national
events —such as elections, reforms, economic crises, educational
advancements, or public health emergencies— the audience associates the
leader’s presence with critical moments, viewing them as an expert in
the key aspects of societal life. This connection leads to the leader’s
increased popularity and credibility. Only a major scandal can lead to
the loss of credibility and the complete collapse of a political
leader’s reputation.
To communicate in everyday life, humans have a cognitive ability to
conceptualize the surrounding world using figurative terms. This
involves constructing possible meanings, which organize our
communicative faculties (Arduini, 2007). Politics, being so integral to
our daily lives, must also be communicated. Indeed, political
development is unimaginable without political communication, which
should be regarded as one of the most vital forms of modern
communication. Political discourse, which conveys political messages and
aims to communicate political attitudes towards human plans and actions,
is among the most ideologically driven forms of discourse. It can be
formulated, reformulated, and recomposed many times. In all cases, the
composition of political discourse is shaped by the specific contextual
characteristics that necessitate its creation. Political communication,
by nature, can be informative (providing information of
interest to society), persuasive (connecting political leaders
with their electorate), and competitive (where one political
option triumphs over others; Vilches Vivancos, 2012).
Political communication is a mode of political activity that
formulates political objectives based on voters’ expectations and serves
the function of constructing identity through symbolic practices
(Sarmiento González, 2012). Symbolic, because what we hear or read is,
by nature, a product of imagination —both when politicians speak about
the past and when they discuss a future rooted in the present. This
imagination must align with our expectations; otherwise, what we hear
will not resonate with us. As a result, a political leader loses the
ability to convince us with a message that forms the semantic foundation
of their success.
A political orator must possess what is known as active
rhetorical competence (Albaladejo, 1989), a communicative-textual
skill that governs the creation of a text and determines how it should
be delivered —whether through oral or written communication— ultimately
with the goal of persuasion. This competence is essential for
constructing rhetorical political discourse, which relies on rhetorical
operations involved in its creation, as well as on operations like
memoria and actio/pronuntiatio that, while
not directly part of discourse formation, are crucial for its delivery.
In addition to active rhetorical competence, there is a clear
need for passive rhetorical competence on the part of the
audience. This competence enables the audience to properly perceive and
assess the rhetorical political discourse presented by a political
leader (Albaladejo, 1989).
When discussing the communication of a political text, we must
consider two key approaches to the topic: first, the nature of the
political text itself, which is often future-oriented
(Triadafilopoulos, 1999); second, the fact that political speeches are
usually crafted by assistants or a group of individuals who shape a
particular political ideology. This process turns political speech into
a planned or pre-planned discourse (Ochs, 1979; Capone, 2010), enabling
political leaders to anticipate the potential effects of their speeches
(Reyes, 2014).
7. Conclusions
Political discourse has its own distinct mechanisms of composition
and communication. Its composition relies on the linguistic and
rhetorical resources of a given society, while its communication depends
on both the active and passive rhetorical competences
of politicians and their audiences. Additionally, political discourse is
often future-oriented, characterized by promises that shape its
communicative nature.
Based on cultural components, metaphors enrich political discourse,
making it more persuasive and facilitating the effective acceptance of
its semantic meaning. The activation of the metaphorical engine
is crucial not only for the transmission but also for the interpretation
of political discourses.
Context shapes the semantic foundation of a discourse. Built upon
memory and historical experience, context not only creates a space for
discourse but also imagines and predicts the scenarios that may
influence the ways in which political discourse is created and
communicated.
Credibility and popularity share a bidirectional relationship in
achieving political success. Both factors contribute to the
revitalization of political activity, establish a presence in the
electorate’s consciousness, and help shape the image of a strong, brave,
and successful political leader.
8. Bibliography
Albaladejo, T. (1989): Retórica, Madrid, Síntesis.
Albaladejo, T. (1991): “El texto político de estructura periodística: la configuración retórica de su comunicación”, in J. Garrido Medina, ed., La lengua y los medios de comunicación, Madrid, Universidad de Complutense, tomo I, pp. 390-396.
Albaladejo, T. (2005a): “Retórica, comunicación, interdiscursividad”, Revista de investigación lingüística, 8, pp. 7-33. https://revistas.um.es/ril/article/view/6671
Albaladejo, T. (2008): “Poética, Literatura Comparada y análisis interdiscursivo”, Acta Poética, 29/2, pp. 245274. https://doi.org/10.19130/iifl.ap.2008.2.267
Albaladejo, T. (2009): “La poliacroasis en la representación literaria: un componente de la Retórica cultural”, Castilla. Estudios de Literatura, 0, nueva época, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.24197/cel.0.2009.1-26
Albaladejo, T. (2012): “Retórica política y comunicación digital. La ampliación de la poliacroasis”, in E. del Río Sanz, Ma del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva, T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp.9-66.
Albaladejo, T. (2013a): “Rhetoric and Discourse Analysis”, in I. Olza, Ó. Loureda & M. Casado, eds., Language Use in the Public Sphere: Methodological Perspectives and Empirical Applications, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang (Series Linguistic Insights), pp. 19-51. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0526-1
Albaladejo, T. (2013b): “Retórica cultural, lenguaje retórico, lenguaje literario”, Tonos Digital: Revista de estudios filológicos, 25, pp. 1-21.
Albaladejo, T. (2016): “Cultural rhetoric. Foundations and Perspectives”, Res Rhetorica, III, 1, pp. 17-29. https://doi.org/10.17380/rr2016.1.2
Albaladejo, T. (2019a): “Retórica cultural y textualidad. A propósito de un discurso forense de Juan Meléndez Valdés”, in R. González Ruiz, I. Olza, Ó. Loureda Lamas, eds., Language Use in the Public Sphere: Methodological Perspectives and Empirical Applications, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang (Series Linguistic Insights), pp. 83-98. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0526-1
Albaladejo, T. (2019b): “The Pragmatics in János S. Petőfi’s Text Theory and the Cultural Rhetoric: The Extensional-Semantic Code and the Literature of the Spanish Golden Age”, in M. Borreguero Zuloaga & L. Vitacolonna, eds., The Legacy of János S. Petőfi: Text Linguistics, Literary Theory and Semiotics, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 92-109.
Albaladejo, T. (2019c): “El motor metafórico y la fundamentación retórico-cultural de su activación”, Castilla. Estudios de Literatura, 10, pp. 559-583. https://doi.org/10.24197/cel.10.2019.559-583
Albaladejo, T. (2023): “Discurso retórico, discurso literario y arte de lenguaje: un modelo teórico translacional de fundamentación retórico-cultural e interdiscursiva sobre la base de la analogía”, Rétor, 13(1), pp. 1-18. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-0834
Albaladejo, T. and F. Chico Rico (1994): “La Intellectio en la serie de las operaciones retóricas no constituyentes de discurso”, in T. Albaladejo, F. Chico Rico y E. del Río Sanz, eds., Retórica hoy, Madrid, Verbum, pp. 339352.
Albaladejo, T. and F. Chico Rico (2022): “Retórica y Estudios del discurso”, in C. López Ferrero, I. E. Carranza, T. A. Van Dijk, eds., Estudios del discurso/The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Discourse Studies, London, Routledge, pp. 101-114. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367810214
Arduini, S. (1991): “Campo retorico, ínventio e traduzione”, Koiné, I, 2, pp. 77-88.
Arduini, S. (2007): “Metaphors Concepts Cognition”, in S. Arduini, ed., Metaphors, Roma, Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, pp. 7-16.
Aristóteles (1971): Retórica, edición bilingüe de Antonio Tovar, Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Políticos.
Atkins, J.W.H. (1961): Literary Criticism in Antiquity, 2 vols., Gloucester, Mass., Smith.
Ayala, F. (1985): La retórica del periodismo y otras retóricas, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe.
Bitzer, L. (1981): “Political rhetoric”, in D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders, eds., Handbook of political communication, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, pp. 225-248.
Bucy, E. P. And S. D. Bradley (2004): “Presidential Expressions and Viewer Emotion: Counter Emphatic Responses to Televised Leader Displays”, Social Science Information, 43(1), pp. 59-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184040689
Bull, P. E. (1986): “The Use of Hand Gestures in Political Speeches: Some Case Studies”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, pp. 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8652002
Caballero López. J.A. (2012): “Retórica, Política e Ideología del Discurso Epidíctico en la Grecía Antigua”, in E. del Río Sanz, Ma del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva, T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 371-382.
Capdevila, A. (2002): El análisis del nuevo discurso político. Acercamiento metodológico al estudio del discurso persuasivo audiovisual, Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Chafee, S. H. ed., (1975): Political communication, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.
Capone, A. (2010): “Barak Obama’s South Carolina Speech”, Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2964-2977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.011
Carillo Guerrero, L. (2009): “Retórica: La efectividad comunicativa”, Revista Rhêtorikê, 2, pp. 39-66.
Chaffee, S. (2001): “Studying the New Communication of Politics”, Political Communication, 18(2), pp. 237-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846001750323573
Charteris-Black, J. (2011): Politicians and rhetoric. The persuasive power of metaphor, London, Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899
Chico Rico, F. (2007): “A vueltas con la Teoría de la Literatura. La Teoría de la Literatura como sistema global de descripción y explicación del texto literario y del hecho literario”, Monteagudo. Revista de Literatura Española, Hispanoamericana y Teoría de la Literatura, 12, pp. 157-168. https://revistas.um.es/monteagudo/article/view/76081
Chico Rico, F. (2015): “La Retórica cultural en el contexto de la Neorretórica”, Dialogía. Revista de lingüística, literatura y cultura, 9, pp. 304-322.
Chico Rico, F. (2019): “János S. Petőfi’s Linguistic and Textual Theory and the Recovery of the Historical Thinking about Rhetoric”, in M. Borreguero & L. Vitacolonna, eds., The Legacy of János S. Petőfi: Text Linguistics, Literary Theory and Semiotics, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 110-131.
Chico Rico, F. (2020): “Desarrollos actuales de los estudios retóricos en España: la retórica desde la teoría de la literatura”, Rétor, 10(2), pp. 133-164. https://www.aaretorica.org/revista/index.php/retor/article/view/34
Chilton, P. (2005): “Missing links in mainstream CDA: modules, blends and critical instinct”, in R. Wodak and P. Chilton, eds., A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 19-52. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi
Clark, H.H. (1987): “For dimension of language use”, in J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi, eds., The Pragmative Perspective. Selected papers from the 1985 international pragmatics conference, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 9-28.
Cockcroft, R. and S. M. Cockcroft (1992): Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric, London, Macmillan.
Cole, T. (1991): The origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.
Coseriu, E. (1967): Teoría del lenguaje y lingüística general, Madrid, Gredos.
Curtius, E. R. (1981): Literatura europea y Edad Media Latina, Madrid, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
De Bruyne, E. (1958): Estudios de Estética Medieval, Madrid, Gredos.
Eco, U. (1987): “Semantics, pragmatics, and text semiotics”, in J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi, eds., The Pragmative Perspective. Selected papers from the 1985 international pragmatics conference, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 695-713.
Ekström, M. (2012): “Gaze work in political media interviews”, Discourse & Communication, 6(3), pp. 249-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312452200
Encinas, M. C. (2012): “Los límites difusos de la retórica política en la Atenas clásica”, in E. del Río Sanz, Ma del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva, T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 333-347.
Escandell, V. (2008): Introducción a la pragmática, Barcelona, Ariel.
Fairclough, N. (2003): Analysing Discourse, London, Routledge.
Fauconnier, G. (1994): Mental Spaces, New York, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582
Fauconnier, G. (1999): Introduction to Methods and Generalizations, in Theodorus A. J. M. Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, pp. 95-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.95
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2002): The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities, New York, Basic Books.
Frank, D. A. (2011): “Obama’s rhetorical signature: Cosmopolitan civil religion in the presidential inaugural address”, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(4), pp. 605-630. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rap.2011.0044
Gadamer, H.-G. (1986): The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy, New Haven, Yale University Press.
Gagarin, M. (2010): Antiphon the Athenian. Oratory, Law, and Justice in the Age of the Sophists, Austin, University of Texas Press.
Gallor Guarín, J. O. (2019): El “Diálogo de doctrina christiana” de Juan de Valdés: Retórica cultural, discurso y literatura, Alicante, Publicacions de la Universitat d’Alacant.
García Berrio, A. (1984): “Retórica como ciencia de la expresividad (Presupuestos para una Retórica general)”, Estudios de Lingüística, 2, pp. 7-59.
García Berrio, A. (1977): Formación de la Teoría Literaria moderna. 1. La tópica horaciana en Europa, Madrid, Cupsa.
García Berrio, A. (1994): Teoría de la Literatura (La construcción del significado poético), Madrid, Cátedra.
Genette, G. (1972): “La rhétorique restreinte”, in G. Genette, Figures III, París, Seuil, pp. 21-40.
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. (1999): “Speaking and thinking with metonymy”, in K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp.61–76. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4
Goebel, G. H. (1983): Early Greek Rhetorical Theory and Practice: Proof and Arrangement in the Speeches of Antiphon and Euripides, Madison, The University of Wisconsin.
Gómez Alonso, J.C. (1997): “Influencia de memoria y actio en la construcción del discurso retórico”, The Canadian Journal of Rhetorical Studies/La Revue Canadienne d’Études Rhétoriques, 8, pp. 129-139.
Gómez-Moriana, A. (1997): “Du texte au discours. Le concept d`interdiscursivité”, Versus, 77-78, pp. 57-73.
González Ruiz, R., , I. O. Olza and O. Loureda Lamas, eds., (2019): Lengua, cultura, discurso. Estudios ofrecidos al profesor Manuel Casado Velarde, Pamplona, Eunsa.
Graber, D. A. (1981): “Political languages”, in D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders, eds., Handbook of political communication, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, pp. 95-223.
Grube, G. M. A. (1968): The Greek and Roman Critics, London, Methuen.
Grupo μ (1987): Retórica general, Barcelona, Paidós.
Hadot, P. (1980): “Philosophie, dialectique, rhétorique dans l’Antiquite”, Studia philosophica, 39, pp. 139-166.
Haiman, F. (1949): “An experimental study of the effects of ethos in public speaking”, Speech Monographs, 16(2), pp. 190-202.
Halm, C. (1964): Rhetores Latini minores, Frankfurt, Minerva.
Heilmann, L. (1983): “Rhetoric, New Rhetoric and Linguistic Theory”, in L. Heilmann, Linguaggio, Lingue, Culture. Saggi linguistici e indologici, Bolonia, II Mulino, pp. 283-299.
Hinks, D. A. G. (1940): “Tisias and Corax and the Invention of Rhetoric”, The Classical Quarterly, 34, pp. 61-69.
Hobbs, P. (2008): “Surging ahead to a new way forward: the metaphorical foreshadowing of a policy shift”, Discourse & Communication, 2(1), pp. 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307085576
Hovland, C. I., L. J. Irving and H. H. Kelley (1953): Communication and Persuasion, New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press.
Indurkhya, B. (1992): Metaphor and Cognition. An Interactionist Approach, Dordrecht/Boston/London, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jaeger, W. (1978): Paiedia: los ideales de la cultura griega, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Janoschka, A. (2010): “Direct e-communication: Linguistic weapons in a political weblog”, in U. Okulska & P. Cap, eds., Perspectives in politics and discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.17jan
Jiménez, M. (2018): “Sobre contexto y teoría literaria”, Actio Nova: Revista de Teoría de la Literatura y Literatura Comparada, 2, pp. 331-350. https://doi.org/10.15366/actionova2018.2.015
Kennedy, G. (1972): The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Elizabeth, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Kerferd, G. B. (1981): The Sophistic Movement, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993): “The contemporary theory of metaphor”, in A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999): Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought, New York, Basic Books.
Levinson, S. (1983): Pragmatics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd, G. (2010): “La retórica en la antigüedad griega y china”, Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación, 1, pp. 1-12.
López Eire, A. (1996): Esencia y objeto de la retórica, México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Lopez Eire, A. (2002): Poéticas y Retóricas Griegas, Madrid, Síntesis.
Lopez Eire, A. (2005): Sobre el carácter retórico del lenguaje y de cómo los antiguos griegos lo descubrieron, México, UNAM.
López Eire, A. y J. de Santiago Guervós (2000): Retórica y comunicación política, Madrid, Cátedra.
Luarsabishvili, V. ed., (2023): Cultural Rhetoric. Rhetorical Perspectives, Transferential Insights,Tbilisi, New Vision University Press.
Luarsabishvili, V. (2024): Retórica cultural: metáfora, contexto, traducción, Oxford, Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b21242
McCroskey, J. (1966): “Scales for the measurement of Ethos”, Speech Monographs, 33(1), pp. 65-72.
Mignolo, W. (1978): Elementos para una teoría del texto literario, Barcelona, Crítica.
Murphy, J. (1982): The Age of Codification: Hermagoras and the Pseudo-Ciceronian Rhetorica ad Herennium, CA, Davis, Warner.
Murphy, J. J. ed., (1986): La retórica en la Edad Media, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Murphy, J. J. (1994): “The End of the Ancient World: The Second Sophistic and Saint Augustine”, in J. J. Murphy, ed., A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, Davis, Hermagoras Press, pp. 205-214.
Oakeshott, M. (1958): Experience and Its Models, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Oakeshott, M. (1983): On History and Other Essays, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Oakeshott, M. (1991): Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, Indianapolis, Liberty Press.
Ochs, E. (1979): “Planned and Unplanned Discourse”, in T. Givon, eds., Discourse and Syntax, Leiden, Brill, pp. 51-80. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_004
O’Keefe D. J. (2018): “Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness: evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness”, Journal of Communication, 68(1), pp. 120-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx009
O’ Shaughnessy, N. (2014): “The Rhetoric of Rhetoric–Political Rhetoric as Function and Dysfunction”, in J. Atkins, A. Finlayson, J. Martin, and N. Turnbull, eds., Rhetoric in British Politics and Society, London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137325532_2
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1989): Tratado de la argumentación. La nueva retórica, Madrid, Gredos. Poggi, I. (2007): Mind, Hands, Face and Body. A Goal and Belief View of Multimodal Communication, Berlin, Weidler. Poggi, I. and C. Pelachaud (2008): “Persuasive gestures and the expressivity of ECAs”, in I. Wachsmuth, M. Lenzen, G. Knoblich, eds., Embodied Communication in Humans and Machines, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 391-424. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231751.001.0001
Pozuelo Yvancos, J. M. (1988): Del Formalismo a la Neorretórica, Madrid, Taurus.
Pujante, D. (2012): “La operación elocutio, ¿Una reina destronable?: Su complejo predominio en el discurso retórico”, in E. del Río Sanz, Mª del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva y T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 175-187.
Quintiliano, M. F. (1970): Institutio oratoria, edición de Michael Winterbottom, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Reyes, A. (2011): “Strategies of legitimation in political discourse: From words to actions”, Discourse & Society, 22(6), pp. 781-807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927
Reyes, A. (2014): “Bush, Obama: (in)formality as persuasion in political discourse”, Journal of Language and Politics, 13(3), pp. 538-562. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.3.08rey
Riker W. H. (1986): The Art of Political Manipulation, New Haven, Yale University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1980): La metáfora viva, Madrid, Europa.
Sarmiento González, R. (2012): “El mensaje político y comunicación”, in E. del Río Sanz, Mª del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva y T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 205-222.
Scott Mio, J. (1996): “Metaphor, politics and persuasion”, in J. Scott Mio and A. N. Katz, eds., Metaphor: Implications and Applications, London and New York, Routledge, pp. 127-146. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789316
Siles Ruiz, J. (2012): “La Retórica en la formación del ciudadano: tradición, vigencia y actualidad”, in E. del Río Sanz, Mª del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva y T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 21-32.
Silverstein, M. (1976): “Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description”, in K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby, eds., Meaning in Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM, University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11-55.
Suhay E., B. Grofman, A. H. Trechsel, eds., (2020): The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion, New York, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.001.0001
Swanson, D. L. and D. D. Nimmo, eds., (1990): New directions in political communications: a resource book, London, Sage.
Triadafilopoulos, T. (1999): “Politics, Speech, and the Art of Persuasion: toward an Aristotelian Conception of the Public Sphere”, The Journal of Politics, 61(3), pp. 741-57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647826
Valdivia, P. (2019): “Narrating Crises and Populism in Southern Europe: Regimes of Metaphor”, Journal of European Studies, 49(3-4), pp. 282-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244119865083
Valdivia, P. (2020): “Cultural Narratives of Crisis and Populism in Spain: Metaphor, Nation-branding, and Social Change”, in M. Boletsi, J. Houwen & L. Minnaard, eds., Languages of Resistance, Transformation, and Futurity in Mediterranean Crisis-Scapes: From Crisis to Critique, London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36415-1_6
Van Dijk, T. A. ed., (1976): Pragmatics of Language and Literature, 2, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995): “On Macrostructures, Mental Models, and Other Inventions: A Brief Personal History of the Kintsch-van Dijk Theory”, in Ch. A. Weaver III, S. Mannes, & C. Randy Fletcher, eds., Discourse Comprehension: Essays in Honor of Walter Kintsch, New York, Routledge, pp. 383–410. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203052921
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997): “What is Political Discourse Analysis?”, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11, pp. 11-52. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003): “Political Discourse and Ideology”, Doxa Comunicación. Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios de Comunicación y Ciencias Sociales, I, pp. 207-225. https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n1a12
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006b): “Discourse and Manipulation”, Discourse & Society, 17(3), pp. 359-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008): Discourse and Context. A sociocognitive approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499
Van Dijk, T. A. (2013): “Ideology and discourse”, in M. Freeden, and M. Stears, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.001.0001
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008): Texts and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis, New York, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
Vázquez y S. Aldea (1991): Estrategia y manipulación del lenguaje. Análisis pragmático del lenguaje publipropagandístico, Zaragoza, Prensas Universitarias.
Vilches Vivancos, F. (2012): “La retórica del estado y el estado de la retórica política”, in E. del Río Sanz, Ma del Carmen Ruiz de la Cierva, T. Albaladejo, eds., Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad, Logroño, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 223-251.
Wachsmuth, I., M. Lenzen and G. Knoblich, eds. (2008): Embodied Communication in Humans and Machines, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 391-424. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231751.001.0001
Wellek, R., A.Warren (1993): Teoría literaria, Madrid, Gredos.
Wilcox, S. (1942): “The Scope of Early Rhetorical Instruction”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 53, pp. 121-155.
Wong, S. M. C. and F. H. Yap (2015): “Did Obamacare create new jobs? –An analysis of Mitt Romney’s use of rhetorical questions in the 2012 US presidential election campaign”, Text & Talk, 35(5), pp. 643-668. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0018
